Alan Trengove on Rod Laver. New Article

In a new series of articles on Tennis Australia online Rod Laver and Roger Federer are compared in their careers. To me those articles seem to be quite careful researched and well rounded. The famous Australian tennis writer Alan Trengove, the nestor of Australian tennis experts, gives his recent opinion here:www.tennis.com.au/news/2012/09/24/rod-laver-a-master-of-his-time

poorly written and researched IMO .....first off the fact that he speaks so highly of the 62 slam, even though it was only against amateurs and Rod was probably only the 3rd best player in the world at that time ( behind rosewall and hoad ) .....then ....

But how can you be proclaimed the best player that’s ever lived when you’ve lost a series of matches to another player – in this case, Nadal?

err, what ? so the best player ever has to have a winning record vs everyone ? really ?

Not so, Federer, who often looked decidedly uncomfortable at Roland Garros until he won the French title in 2009. It has been his only triumph there in 14 appearances – a stark difference from Laver’s two triumphs from eight visits.

federer played pretty well at RG in 2005,2006 and 2007 .....just because he won there the first time in 2009 , doesn't mean that was the first time he played well there ......

In a new series of articles on Tennis Australia online Rod Laver and Roger Federer are compared in their careers. To me those articles seem to be quite careful researched and well rounded. The famous Australian tennis writer Alan Trengove, the nestor of Australian tennis experts, gives his recent opinion here:www.tennis.com.au/news/2012/09/24/rod-laver-a-master-of-his-time

Click to expand...

Of course B1 will protest any such discussion that doesn't include Ken Rosewall.

Conspicuously missing from the article is the fact that Federer won 3 out of 4 "open" major titles in 3 out of 4 years from 2004-2007. He didn't win the Grand Slam, but, he dominated as much as anyone has over a 4 year stretch, and then contracted mononucleosis. I don't know how long it took for him to recover from it, but, we all know what it did to Robin Soderling and Andy Roddick. Yet, Federer remained at or near the top for 4 years after contracting mono winning 5 more major titles before regaining the #1 ranking this year. A testiment to Federer's talent and determination.

But how can you be proclaimed the best player that’s ever lived when you’ve lost a series of matches to another player – in this case, Nadal?

Click to expand...

This is a fair question by Trengove but I think the best way to answer it is with another question: how can Ivan Lendl be proclaimed the best player of the 1980s when he lost so many big matches to Boris Becker?

I find discussions of who is the GOAT fascinating--even though I myself am hard pressed to give a definitive answer. If Federer had to play in long pants, long sleeves, in canvas tennis shoes or better yet spikes, with a 15-16 oz. wood racquet with no grip--just the bare wood, with gut strings, with white balls, on the courts of the day, could be beat Tilden in his prime? I don't know. If Nadal had to play a 40 yr. old Gonzales and had to use a 65 sq. in. aluminum Spalding Smasher strung with Victor Imperial gut instead of his poly-strung 100 sq. in. graphite Babolat, again in canvas shoes, in short shorts, on fast courts would be win? Again, I don't know, but in both cases I'm inclined to doubt it. We all know about Laver being barred from playing the 'Slams' when he turned pro, but I'm not so sure that statistics like number of titles alone is all that matters. One has to consider the circumstances that lead to those statistics. The comparisons of players from different eras will always be controversial, and I doubt there will ever be a consensus. But I still I find such discussions absolutely fascinating.

This is a fair question by Trengove but I think the best way to answer it is with another question: how can Ivan Lendl be proclaimed the best player of the 1980s when he lost so many big matches to Boris Becker?

Becker won all 4 of his Grand Slam meetings with Lendl in the 80s.

Click to expand...

One of the missing rivalries of the 80´s was Mac vs Becker.When Becker reached stardom, Mac started his slow but constant decline.He only had a real good tennis year after 1985, and it was 1989, the year Becker became the premier world´s player, but except on their famous DC match,they did not play a big match wherever .

Both were the only guys to win 3 Wimbledon titles in the same decade,as long as I can recall.The match of matches at Wimbledon for the decade of the 80´s.

If you actually think anything Trengrove (who is one of the best writers/journalists that tennis has had) writes is poorly researched and badly written then its a massive indictment on both you and your ability to discern quality writing from fanboy drooling.

If you actually think anything Trengrove (who is one of the best writers/journalists that tennis has had) writes is poorly researched and badly written then its a massive indictment on both you and your ability to discern quality writing from fanboy drooling.

Click to expand...

To certain people, if it does not laud Federer to the skies and even hints in the subtlest way that he is not the greatest, then it is by definition "poorly researched and badly written."

To certain people, if it does not laud Federer to the skies and even hints in the subtlest way that he is not the greatest, then it is by definition "poorly researched and badly written."

Click to expand...

It is poorly written.

Alan Trengove said:

Some say Australia’s 74-year-old Rod Laver is still the best male player of all time. Others insist that recent performances of the 31-year-old Swiss Roger Federer have consolidated the role for himself. (Though not me, mind you – not the true believers!)

Click to expand...

Yep, way to start off your piece under the blanket of objectivity and tolerance for others' views.

If you actually think anything Trengrove (who is one of the best writers/journalists that tennis has had) writes is poorly researched and badly written then its a massive indictment on both you and your ability to discern quality writing from fanboy drooling.

If this is quality writing and not fanboy drooling, I'm going to turn in my English degree. Perhaps it's not poorly researched, but it is, quite frankly, literary diarrhea.

It has nothing to do with Trengove's support of Laver. When TC's GOAT list came out, SI's Bruce Jenkins wrote a very good piece which highlighted some of the laughable selections of the list and why he thought Laver was the best ever, while avoiding didactic statements like "true believers."

If you actually think anything Trengrove (who is one of the best writers/journalists that tennis has had) writes is poorly researched and badly written then its a massive indictment on both you and your ability to discern quality writing from fanboy drooling.

Click to expand...

really now ?

that article is a fanboy drooling one. Not what I wrote .....

I LOL'ed at the use of the phrase "true believers"

federer didn't look comfortable until RG 2009 ?

frankly that is a load of cr*p ....

research ? forget research ..... if he had bothered watching a few federer matches RG 2005, 2006,07, he wouldn't be sprouting that sort of BS !

Laver may be the greatest/best of all time, but this article is pretty poor.

If you actually think anything Trengrove (who is one of the best writers/journalists that tennis has had) writes is poorly researched and badly written then its a massive indictment on both you and your ability to discern quality writing from fanboy drooling.

research ? forget research ..... if he had bothered watching a few federer matches RG 2005, 2006,07, he wouldn't be sprouting that sort of BS !

Laver may be the greatest/best of all time, but this article is pretty poor.

Click to expand...

You still dazzed and frustrated that Kodes won 2 RG to your beloved Roger 1?
Laver 3 Slams to Roger 0?
Sampras, Borg and Gonzales would laugh at Federer ridiculous opposition forlong and long years while they played strong eras?

When TC's GOAT list came out, SI's Bruce Jenkins wrote a very good piece which highlighted some of the laughable selections of the list and why he thought Laver was the best ever, while avoiding didactic statements like "true believers."

Click to expand...

An interesting piece. Thoughtful conclusion.

(The TC list does include some amazing goofs. I'd like to see the same list reconsidered in 30 years.)

Some, if they have the intellectual capacity, should note, that the article is a piece in a whole series of articles (links are on the side), where differerent views and opinions are sampled. The Federer fanboys should read the other piece. Trengove has covered tennis for more than 50 years, he has seen more tennis and more written on tennis than any here together. His books on Davis Cup, Australian Open and Professional Tennis are standard reference works. Actually his book Art of Tennis, written with the cream of the pros as Hoad, Rosewall, Gonzalez, Sedgman, Budge, Segura and Laver, and edited in 8 languages, was the first book on tennis, i have ever read, and it brought me to the sport.

Some, if they have the intellectual capacity, should note, that the article is a piece in a whole series of articles (links are on the side), where differerent views and opinions are sampled. The Federer fanboys should read the other piece. Trengove has covered tennis for more than 50 years, he has seen more tennis and more written on tennis than any here together. His books on Davis Cup, Australian Open and Professional Tennis are standard reference works. Actually his book Art of Tennis, written with the cream of the pros as Hoad, Rosewall, Gonzalez, Sedgman, Budge, Segura and Laver, and edited in 8 languages, was the first book on tennis, i have ever read, and it brought me to the sport.

Some, if they have the intellectual capacity, should note, that the article is a piece in a whole series of articles (links are on the side), where differerent views and opinions are sampled. The Federer fanboys should read the other piece. Trengove has covered tennis for more than 50 years, he has seen more tennis and more written on tennis than any here together. His books on Davis Cup, Australian Open and Professional Tennis are standard reference works. Actually his book Art of Tennis, written with the cream of the pros as Hoad, Rosewall, Gonzalez, Sedgman, Budge, Segura and Laver, and edited in 8 languages, was the first book on tennis, i have ever read, and it brought me to the sport.

Click to expand...

In other words: blah, blah, blah. I don't care about any of that. You posted a link to an article you claim to be "quite careful[sic] researched and well rounded". The article I read could have been ghostwritten by kiki. I've read some other articles of his via EBSCO and it seems he's just lost a lot off his fastball - he's 82-83 for interested parties. If you just wanted to name drop, fine, you're both entitled your opinions. But don't insult my "intellectual capacity" when I could have found a better article on Bleacher Report in 5 minutes than your "careful researched" gem. Hell, you even had a known Federer-basher and Lavertard in this thread saying the article was garbage.

In a new series of articles on Tennis Australia online Rod Laver and Roger Federer are compared in their careers. To me those articles seem to be quite careful researched and well rounded. The famous Australian tennis writer Alan Trengove, the nestor of Australian tennis experts, gives his recent opinion here:www.tennis.com.au/news/2012/09/24/rod-laver-a-master-of-his-time

Click to expand...

Trengove might be a first-class tennis writer. But I could not understand him when he blamed Joe McCauley's marvellous book for giving "too many results".
In fact Joe's book was the first to give a good view over the whole pro's history.

Some, if they have the intellectual capacity, should note, that the article is a piece in a whole series of articles (links are on the side), where differerent views and opinions are sampled. The Federer fanboys should read the other piece. Trengove has covered tennis for more than 50 years, he has seen more tennis and more written on tennis than any here together. His books on Davis Cup, Australian Open and Professional Tennis are standard reference works. Actually his book Art of Tennis, written with the cream of the pros as Hoad, Rosewall, Gonzalez, Sedgman, Budge, Segura and Laver, and edited in 8 languages, was the first book on tennis, i have ever read, and it brought me to the sport.

Click to expand...

the question isn't about Trengove's articles/tennis journalism. It is about this article, which is plainly poor and badly researched ...... as many have pointed out with various points, including me ......

The writer is from Australia so it's clear that he's biased toward Laver. Few years ago Peter Bodo admitted that he was biased toward Sampras when comparing as to who's the greatest. These writers are biased toward their countryman. If you want a writer to provide objective assessment between Federer and Laver, Steve Flink is a good example.

Bobby One, i didn't know, that Trengove was critical on McCauley's book. The book is imo the most important contribution to tennis in the last 15 years.

Click to expand...

Yes, Joe's book is a milestone of the description of tennis history. It was very good that Joe brought a huge amount of results and other information.

By the way, I originally wanted to publish a book on pros' history and discussed the issue with Joe. But I quickly realized that Joe is the better man to write and publish such a book for several reasons: Joe was the better writer than me, he kept much more results than I did and, last not least, he had more money to publish the book.

Maybe Andrew Tas can publish a book with additional information one day...

no, not at all Kodes was the luckiest player ever and had 3 of the weakest draws possible to win his slams ...

Most ( well all people - Kodestards) know federer is a superior claycourter to Kodes by some distance

he won one slam ( the amateur one doesn't count ) and didn't dominate as much as federer did over a 4 year stretch ( 2004-2007 )

what they'd laugh at is your dumb suggestion that this era is weak ....... and most of your other posts here ...

Kodes being on the same level as Vines
federer being in the 3rd tier of greats

etc etc ...

Click to expand...

If 62 not counting them 67 does, you cannot dispise bot
Laver dominated 5 or 6 yrs in a row from 64 to 70 although I would say in 70 it is too close and that surpasses Federer who dominated 2003-2007
I feel so bad for Fed being so unrespectfully owned by Nadal that I rise him to second tier, don' t ask me for more generousity
About Kodes, do you know how Napoleon chose his generals?

The writer is from Australia so it's clear that he's biased toward Laver. Few years ago Peter Bodo admitted that he was biased toward Sampras when comparing as to who's the greatest. These writers are biased toward their countryman. If you want a writer to provide objective assessment between Federer and Laver, Steve Flink is a good example.

poorly written and researched IMO .....first off the fact that he speaks so highly of the 62 slam, even though it was only against amateurs and Rod was probably only the 3rd best player in the world at that time ( behind rosewall and hoad ) .....then ....

Click to expand...

Wasn't he also behind Lew Hoad (when he was healthy) and Pancho Gonzalez in 1962?

no, it doesn't. 67 was a smaller field ( pros only ) ....... chances of upset are more in a 128 person draw ... see drysdale beating laver in 68 US Open.

Also French Pro in 67 was indoors ...... French Open would be on clay .....Rosewall did beat him @ RG on clay in 68 .... he'd have a good shot at the same in 67 as well ....

so no, the 67 pro slam is not close to the true grand slam ...

no, it doesn't .... laver never dominated a stretch of years as federer did from 2004-07 ......just being the no 1 player for those years doesn't mean he was as dominant as federer was ....

he leads nadal H2H outside of clay , both on hard courts and on grass... the only place where nadal leads him is clay, which is not surprising as nadal is the claycourt GOAT ......

reality is you are mad that federer has surpassed crush laver as the GOAT in the eyes of most ...

and of course you have near zero knowledge of tennis

Click to expand...

The best tournaments, now, before and ever are those competed by the best.No matther the nº of players entering.The best events all throughout the 50´s and 60´s were pros, so most of them are pros.We have to go case per case, anyhow.Maybe a few amateurs traditional slams had a better cast than the early 50´s pros events, so we should go one bu one to be fair.

And there are two things as sure as life about *******s never being able to overcome:

-.freaking Nadal´s ownage
-.Laver´s 3 GS...

There is only two ways to counterbalance it: either Fed starts beating up Nadal, and I think this is the easiest of the two possibilities...and retires winning 3 GS ( of course, only calendar counts) which I don´t think he is able to...in fact, with pathetic 2003-2006 opposition he wasn´t able so figure it now¡¡¡¡